HERVAS LABORATORIES OF 
AMERICAN LINGUISTICS 
BULLETIN 4 


RELATIONSHIPS OF THE CHITIMACHAN 
LINGUISTIC FAMILY 


by 


■tf jLc iwu; 


Nozon Toomey 


St. Louis, Mo., U. S. A. 
Hervas Laboratories 
September, 1914 


Collected set 



















A\ u 

\ ^5 A 


RELATIONSHIPS OF THE CHITIMACHAN 
LINGUISTIC FAMILY. 

By Noxon Toomey. 

The Chitimachan linguistic family was established by Powell 
in his ‘‘Indian Linguistic Families ” 1 to accommodate but one 
language, that of the Chitimacha indians of lower Louisiana. 
The language remains almost unstudied. Its primitive home 
was around Grand Lake in Louisiana, but was spoken in the 
vicinity of Vermillion Bay, Atchafalya Bay, and eastward to the * 
country of the Okelousa, Bayogula, Washa and Chawasha, Musk- 
hogean peoples on the west bank of the Mississippi . 2 

In historic times the immediate neighbors of the Chitimacha 
have been on the east the above mentioned Muskhogean 
tribes speaking languages similar to the Choctaw; on the west 
the Attacapa (believed to be a distinct stock); and on the north 
the Okelousa and Hooma (Muskhogean), with the Natchez fur¬ 
ther up the Mississippi. Undoubtedly bands of Adai and other 
Caddoan tribes also came in contact with the Chitimacha 3 . The 
relationship existing between these peoples and the Chitimacha 
has never been close, and, with the exception of the Natchez, they 
seem to have no ethnic connection with them whatever. The 
legends, customs and organization of the Natchez and Chiti¬ 
macha are very similar. This strongly confirms the linguistic 
similarity in suggesting as probable a divergent descent from a 
parent tribe. I will discuss the chief points of similarity after 
treating of the language . 4 

1 i n “Seventh Annual Report of the Bureau of American Ethnology,” Wash., 
1891. 

2 For synonyms and brief account see “Handbook of American Indians, 
Vol. I. 

s For general discussion see Gatshet “Creek Migration Legions,” Vol. I. 

4 For ethnology of Chitimacha see Brinton in Trans. Anthropological Soc. 
of Washington, D. C., Vol II, and Swanton “Indian Tribes of the Lower Miss.” 



Bulletin 4—Hervas Laboratories. 


2 


In 1706 the Chitimacha came into definite contact with the 
French near New Orleans. They have not played a conspicuous 
part in history, which fact may in part account for our lack of 
early information concerning their ethnology and language. 
They have always been considered a distinct stock and no 
attempt has ever been made to prove them even distantly con¬ 
nected with any other tribe. 5 

The first material recorded was a vocabulary collected by a 
man named Murray. 6 In the early part of the nineteenth cen¬ 
tury this manuscript came into the hands of Martin Duralde, 
who was commandant of the posts of Opelousas and Attacapa 
(now Franklin, La.). Duralde later added the vocabulary to his 
word-list of the Attacapa and to a manuscript account of the 
mythology of the Chitimacha that he, or some earlier observer, 
had collected. Two copies of this later compilation are known 
to have been made. The one retained by the author was discov¬ 
ered about 1848 near Opelousas, La. Portions had been partly 
destroyed by mice. The fate of the imperfect copy is not known, 
but a translation of it was made and is now in the Bureau of 
Ethnology. According to the original manuscript it was “a 
letter written to Sir William Dunbar respecting some of the curi¬ 
osities of the country to be communicated to La Societe du 
Nord.” This is of course the William Dunbar who settled at 
Natchez and explored the Black and Wachita rivers for the Gov¬ 
ernment, while “La Societe du Nord” is probably the American 
Philosophical Society. Dunbar is believed to have given his 
copy to Dr. Sibley, who deposited it with the above named soci¬ 
ety, or gave it to Thomas Jefferson, who later deposited it with 
the society. The copy is fortunately complete. 

The linguistic material in this letter was published in part by 
Vater in his “Analekten der Sprachenkunde, ’’ Leipzig, 1821. It 
was later printed by Gallatin in his comparative vocabularies 
published in the “Archaeologia Americana,” Vol. II, 1836. No 


5 For early history see Swanton “Indian Tribes,” pp. 337-344. 
e Part printed in Balbi, A. “Atlas ethnogTaphique,” Paris, 1826. 



Toomey — Chitimachan Linguistic Family. 3 

other linguistic material is known to have been taken 7 until 
Gatschet visited the tribe in 1881-82 and “collected an abund¬ 
ance of linguistic material . . . including several texts’’ for 

the Bureau of Ethnology. This material has not been pub¬ 
lished and may not be made available in the immediate future. 
The next material collected was in 1906, when Dr. John R. Swan- 
ton, also of the Bureau of Ethnology, visited the thirty-five or 
more surviving Chitimacha at Charenton, La. He collected sev¬ 
eral myths and personal names. In his “Indian Tribes of the 
Lower Mississippi” 8 he gives the myths in English and the origi¬ 
nal of the personal and other names. No other material has 
been collected, nor has any other since appeared. 

In this paper I present the problem of the Chitimacha rela¬ 
tionships and the results of my attempt to elucidate it based on 
an examination of the language and ethnology of the tribe. Con¬ 
clusions drawn from our present material must of necessity be 
only tentative, though I believe the following will prove sugges¬ 
tive and may stimulate to a fuller investigation. The history of 
the paper is as follows: In 1908 I became interested in the Choc¬ 
taw language and those adjacent to it. The Natchez was then 
treated as a separate stock on the authority of Brinton 9 and 
Powell 10 following Gatschet. My Choctaw and Creek inform¬ 
ants were certain that the Natchez spoke an alien language, 
although an adopted people. While Brinton had noted forty 
terms similar in Natchez and Muskliogean languages, neither 
his work nor that of other writers 11 suggested their probable 
relationship. Noting the migration legends and close ethno¬ 
graphic similarity of the Chitimacha to the Natchez, I believed 
that by comparing their languages I could obtain additional 
evidence to prove them ethnically related. With this end in 
view I compared those Natchez words not loan words from other 

7 For early bibliography see Vater, “Littertur der Grammatiken,” Berlin, 1847. 

s Swanson, John R., “Bui. 43 Bureau of Am. Eth.,” Wash., 1911. 

o In Proceed, of Amer. Philosophical Soc., Vol. XIII, 1873, and “The American 
Race,” N. Y., 1891, p. 90. 

10 In “Seventh Annual Rep. of the Bureau of Amer. Ethnology,” Wash., 1891. 

n Cushing in his “History of the Choctaw, Chickasaw and Natchez Indians,” 
1899, does not imply a racial connection of the latter with the former. 



4 


Bulletin 4—Hervas Laboratories 


languages and those Chitimacha words that were not evidently 
from other sources. Of the remaining words fully thirty per 
cent, showed similarity with the corresponding words in Natchez. 
These similarities were the most characteristic words of a lan¬ 
guage. Considering that the admittedly closely related Muskoki 
and Choctaw show a similarity in only about a half of their 
words it seemed that so large an incidence of corresponding 
words confirmed the conclusions I had reached from other 
sources. Shortly after that I saw Dr. Swanton’s preliminary 
paper 12 on the Natchez in which he tentatively suggests their 
Muskhogean relationship. Press of other work kept me from 
utilizing my material for publication. In a subsequent work 
Swanton (writing of the Natchez) remarks: 13 “Some unex¬ 
pected resemblances to Chitimacha have developed from the pre¬ 
liminary examination, but in general it may be said that the 
writer’s opinion that the Natchez is the result of a mixture of 
Muskhogean and a non-Muskhogean people appears to be 
strongly confirmed.” Finding my conclusions confirmed led 
me to examine my increased material with the results given 
below. 

Language. 

Method .—I made a dictionary of the 84 Chitimacha words in 
Swanton’s “Indian Tribes” and to them added 143 words from 
the vocabulary of Durable 14 . I incorporated in the dictionary 
256 Natchez words, or all available. I then reduced the whole 
to a common alphabet. From the dictionary I removed the Chiti¬ 
macha or Natchez words of extraneous origin. 

I next studied the phonetic principles of the Chitimacha, and 
then the Natchez, later comparing the separate findings. I then 
compared the identical words (as given by the vocabularies) of 
the two languages for lexical similarity. When not successful 
I compared with synonyms or words of an analogous root. It 
is obvious that names of objects recently introduced into the 


12 “Ethnological Position of the Natchez Indians,” American Anthropologist, 
N. S. Vol. 9, 1907, pp. 513-528. 

13 “Indian Tribes of the Lower Mississippi Valley,” p. 365. 

14 Gallatin in “Trans. American Antiquarian Soc..” Vol. II, 1836, pp. 305-67. 



Toomey—Chitimachan Linguistic Family. 5 

Indian economy have no philogical value as two related lan¬ 
guages may derive a new term from roots of different signifi¬ 
cation. 

Phonetis .—The languages formerly spoken south of Tennes¬ 
see and east of Louisiana lack the sounds R (*), Z, ZH, V. TH, 
and DTH. Of these neither the Chitimacha nor Natchez are ex¬ 
ceptions. The Chitimacha alphabet may be represented as fol¬ 
lows, giving the letters their English value: 


Vowels. 

.00 0 AH 

A** AY 

EE (AI) 

Semivowels . 

w 

Y 


Labial 

Lingual 

Palatal 

Nasals.. 

. M 

N 

NG 

Aspirates... 



H 

Sibilants— 
Sonant.... 
Surd. 


S 

SH 

Spirants— 
Sonant.... 
Surd. 

Mutes— 
Sonant.... 
Surd. 

P 

T 

GH (Arabic) 
CH (German) 

G 

K 


The phonetic system nearest related to that of the Chitimacha 
is the Natchez. The latter varying from Chitimacha only by 
the introduction of L and a final F. Chitimacha phonetics varies 
markedly from the Attacapa. The latter is more sonant and in- 
introduces B, D, F, L, and the diphthong AU; it lacks Y, and AI 
and M rarely occurs. The difference between the Chitimacha 
alphabet and the Adai is also marked. The latter introduces L 
and R and CH; it lacks Y, the palatal aspirants and P occurs 
rarely. The other Caddoan languages differ by the characteristic 
frequency of K and R. The differences between the Chitimacha 


Excepting the Koroa and the Timacua. 
* * As in what, not, German man. 








6 


Bulletin 4 — Hervas Laboratories. 


and Natchez from the Muskhogean languages can best be shown 
by comparing the Chitimacha-Natchez alphabet with the fol¬ 
lowing: 

Choctaw-Alibamu Creek-Hitchiti 


Vowels— 

00, 0, EH, AH, AY, EE, (AI, A.U) 00, 0, EH, AH, AY, EE 


Vowels Nasalized— 

00(N), 0(N), A(N), EE(N) 


Semivowels— 

W L Y W L Y 


Labials Linguals Palatals 

Nasals ... M N 

Aspirates. HL or ’L H 


Sibilants— 
Sonant.. 
Surd.... 


S CH, SH 


Spirants— 
Sonant.. 
Surd.... F 


Mutes— 

Sonant.. B 

Surd.... P T K 


Labials Linguals Palatals 

M N 

HL or ’L H 


S CH, SH 


F 


D G 
P T K 


The relative frequencyof the various sounds in the several lan¬ 
guages is as follows: 

Chitimacha .—Of 100 words taken at random the vowels com¬ 
prized 37% of the sounds. The relative frequency out of 150 
vowels was A 38%, EE 28.5%, 00 17%, AY 10% and 0 (mostly 
initial 7.5%. The consonants were distributed as follows, T 18%, 
SH 18%, N 18%, K 16%, P 9%, S 8.5%, M 5%, H (mostly 
initial) 5%. Thus it will be seen that the language is neither 
pronouncedly vocalic nor consonantal and that it is almost en¬ 
tirely lingual (45%) and palatal (40%). The mute-sibilant 
ratio is about 3:2. 


Toomey—Chitimachan Linguistic Family 


Natchez. —Of 100 words taken at random the vowels com¬ 
prised 38.5% of the sounds. Their relative frequency was A 
38%, EE 28.5%, 00 17%, 0 12.5%, and AY 6%. The conso¬ 
nants were divided as follows: T 18%, K 17%, N 13%, SH 
12%, P 10%, S 10%, M 3%, H 3%. It will be seen that the 
vowel-consonant ratio is almost identical in Natchez as in Chi- 
timacha; also the vowel partition is the same except for the 
replacement of 0 and AY. Natchez shows a slightly larger pro¬ 
portion of labials than Chitimacha. It, too, is largely lingual 
and (41%) and palatal (32%). There is a relative increase of 
mutes over sibilants, the ratio being 2:1. Some of the above 
differences between Chitimacha and Natchez may be due to 
Muskhogean influence on the latter. 

Attacapa. —Of 75 words taken at random the vowels comprise 
42.5% of the sounds. Their relative frequency was AH 33%, 
EE 25%, AY 17%, 00 12%, 0 8%. The consonants are divided 
as follows: T 20%, G 13.3%, K 11.7%, N 11.6%, L 8.9%, 
SH 8.9%, D 5.8%, H 5.7%. The linguals comprise 49% of the 
consonants and the palatals 39.6%. The mute-sibilant ratio is 
5:2. The language is more sonant than the preceding ones. 

Adai. —Of 75 words taken at random the vowels comprised 
43% of the sounds. Their relative frequency was: AH 49.3%, 
AY 17.1%, 0 12.3%, EE 11.4%, 00 9%. The consonants are 
divided as follows: K 21.3%, T 18.%, N 18%, S 11.%, L 6.%, 
CH 5.%, W 4.%. 

Choctaw. —The vowels comprise 50.% of the sounds. They 
are proportioned as follows: AH 34.6%, EE 29.4%, 0 16%, 
EH 9.%, AY 4.5%. The consonants are divided as follows: 
K 21.6%, N 14.9%, T 11.3%, L 11.2%, H 8.%, CH 6.2%, M 
6.2%, P 4.8%, Y 4.5%, B 4.3%, SH 3.5%, F 3.5%. Choctaw is 
more labial than any of the other languages and also differs in 
being more palatal (40.%) than lingual (28.%). It is also not 
so sibilant, the mute-sibilant ratio being 4:1. 

Creek. —The vowels comprise 49.% of the sounds in fifty 
words taken at random. They are divided as follows: AH 
43.3%, EE 32.3%, 0 14.1%, EU 8.6%. The consonant partition 
is: K 19.5%, N 13.9%, T 13.9%, S 9.%, M 8.9%, D 8.%, L 


8 


Bulletin 4—Hervas Laboratories. 


5.9%, F 4.5%, P 4.5%, SH 2.9%, H 2.2%. The frequency of 
labials (18.%), palatals (44.%) and linguals (28.6%) is nearly 
that of Choctaw. The mute-sibilant ratio is not quite as high 
as Choctaw, being 3:1. 

Conclusions .—The Chitimacha and Natchez are almost the 
same in their vowel index and the relative frequency of the sev¬ 
eral vowels. Adai differs markedly from Chitimacha by the 
prominence it gives AH. It and Attacapa give more importance 
to AY than 00. On the other hand, the Muskhogean languages 
vary less, but give prominence to 0 at the expense of 00. 
Natchez and Chitimacha are characterized by the prominence 
of T, N, SH, and K, with P, S, M, and H less frequent. The 
other languages have K more prominent than N. In the Musk¬ 
hogean languages T is not so prominent, and SH is not promi¬ 
nent in any, while S is absent from all except Adai. In all but 
Chitimacha and Natchez P is either absent or reduced to half its 
frequency, and all introduce L, Attacapa G and D, Adai CH and 
W, and the Muskhogean languages CH, Y, B and F. The Musk¬ 
hogean languages are more vocalic and labial than either Chiti¬ 
macha or Natchez; they are also less sibilant and the palatals are 
more frequent than the linguals (i. e. opposite to the custom in 
Chitimacha and Natchez.) 

SYLLABIFICATION.—In determining the general nature 
of the words and their component syllables I used large series 
of common words picked at random, excluding only a few 
Natchez words probably Muskhogean in origin. 

The monosyllable-polysyllable ratio is nearly the same in Chi¬ 
timacha, where it is 26:180, and Natchez, where it is 25:180. In 
Adai it is only 3:180, and in Choctaw only 2:180. On the other 
hand, in Attacapa over half the common words are monosyl¬ 
lables. Both Chitimacha and Natchez have an average of 2.5 
syllables to a word, while in Adai the Polysyllabous words have 
an average length of 2.65 syllables. In Choctaw and Muskogean 
the average length is 2.75 syllables, and in Attacapa not much 
over 2. syllables to a word. The initial syllables in both Chiti¬ 
macha and Natchez are preponderatingly consonant-vowel and 
consonant-vowel-consonant syllables, while initial vowel and 


Toomey—Chitimachan Linguistic Family. 


9 


vowel-consonant syllables are rare. Also characteristic in the 
two languages are the final syllables which in about two-fifths 
of the words are consonant-vowel-consonant syllables and in the 
remainder consonant-vowel syllables. Chitimacha also has the 
eonsonant-vowel-donble consonant syllable occurring occa¬ 
sionally either initially or finally. In Choctaw and Muskoki the 
initial vowel and vowel-consonant syllables are over six times 
more frequent than in Chitimacha or Natchez, in other words, 
one-third of all their words begin with a vowel. Extended study 
failed to show any especial vowel or consonant associations that 
seemed to be characteristic of any two of the languages already 
mentioned. Such as occurred was due to the different fre¬ 
quency of certain vowels and consonants in the several lan¬ 
guages, which is given above. 

LEXICOGRAPHY.—My material offered me 134 common 
words to be found in both the Chitimacha and Natchez vocabu¬ 
laries. Of these 17 Chitimacha words were rules out as unques¬ 
tionably borrowed from other languages (9 from Attacapa, 6 
from Adai, 1 from Choctaw, and 1 from Creek). I then ruled 
out 24 words from the Natchez as borrowed from other lan¬ 
guages (12 from Creek and Choctaw, 5 from Caddoan, 4 from 
Cherokee, 2 from Uchee, or Tunica, and one from Attacapa). 
Of the remaining 93 words 36 (38.7%) showed more or less 
similarity between the Chitimacha and Natchez equivalents. 

The chitimacha words borrowed from other languages are as 
follows: From Attacapa, girl, brother, hail, light, grass, earth 
or land, river, ten, and lake; from Adai, man, husband, boy, 
finger, snake, and maize; from Choctaw, meat; and from Creek, 
one. 

The following are the thirty-six Chitimacha words more or 
less similar to Natchez equivalents. The phonetic transcription 
is given in English consonants and continental vowels; v is the 
u heard in tub; c is the sh in should; (e) is a barely audible eh; 
(n) a French nasal. 


10 

Bulletin 4 .— 

Hervas Laboratories. 

Word 

Chitimacha 

Natchez 

Point of Similarity 

mother 

hail 

kwa(i)l 

(kw)hail 

friend 

keta 

keta 

keta 

warrior 

na(e jce 

na(e)kce 

na(e)kce 

nose 

cic 

camatc 

ca(ma)tc 

tooth 

hi(n) 

entv (pi.) 

hen 

arm 

unac 

ic 

nac 

leg 

so 

etwentsev 

(etwent)sev 

house 

hanan 

hahit 

lia(n)ha(n)it 

town 

namu 

tarn (people) 

tam(u) 

day 

wacta 

wetv 

wata 

night 

timan 

tuwa 

tiwa(n) 

sky, heavens kahieketa 

nasuk(e)ta 

keta 

sun 

V iaha 

kwahsep 

k(i)wa(sep) 

water 

ko 

kuhn 

ko(n) 

snow 

kaya 

kowiyv 

ko-ya 

rain 

nastepec 

nasnayobik 

nas-pik 

tree 

konc 

tcu 

tcu(n) 

wood 

konc(ap) 

tcutop 

tcu(tc)ap 

oak 

katnec 

tsoklekep 

(tso)katnek(epl 

tobacco 

hacux (an 
herb) 

hak(au) 

liak(au) 

bird 

t’ia 

tsoka 

tsi(k)a 

deer 

(kam)nitc(e) 

tsa, tza 

(ni)tza 

wolf 

kanikice 

henhvskus 

kanhiskuce 

cold 

kastek 

tsitakopana 

kasitako(pana) 

great 

hatkip 

lehkip 

kip 

blue 

katinec 

ha-ahsep 

ha(ti)nahc(ep) 

black 

kups (black 
paint) 

ka-astcel 

ka(p)tc(el) 

I 

utececa 

tugeha 

tekeha 

three 

kahiti 

nayeti 

nahiti 

four 

meccant 

tanweti 

(me)tan(we)ti 

five 

haspe (hand) espehsev (hand) 

and spede (five) 

seven 

miceta 

u(n)hkwv 

Nat. root weti 

eight 

kueta 

vpkvtepes 

kueta 

nine 

kniceta 

wetepkwutepes 

Nat. root weti 

eleven 

hougo patnic 

\ oguwetan kouse 

ougopatnic 

hundred 

pup 

'pup 

pup 


Toomey—Chitimachan Linguistic Family. 11 

It will thus be seen that many of the fundamental words show 
root similarity; and there is similarity between certain prefixes 
and suffixes, as well as grammatical processes. I regret that the 
limited material at my disposal does not present more examples 
of the use of particals and of morphological processes, which are 
of more value than substantive roots. The findings of Swanton 
incline me to believe, however, that they would prove to be even 
more conclusive. On further study some of the above examples 
probably will be found to be invalid, but others (perhaps pro¬ 
portionately more) will be found to take their place. I do not, 
of course, consider a limited linguistic evidence as given above 
usually sufficient to prove a relationship between two lan¬ 
guages. One must admit, however, that many languages are 
classed as genetically related on much less evidence than the 
above, and, as in the case of the Pacific Coast languages, we may 
have to base our conclusions on the minimum of evidence if we 
are to make progress. I believe that later it might be shown 
that the Chitimacha-Natchez may or may not be properly classi¬ 
fied with another stock,—the Muskhogean for instance. 

Ethnology. 

Physical anthropology .—In stature and corporal appearance 
the two tribes averaged closer resemblance than with any other. 
Craniometry is valueless as far as showing any tribal relation¬ 
ship among the Americans. The Chitimacha and Natchez have, 
however, a lower cephalic index and a higher facial angle than 
any other tribes of the lower Mississippi. 

Migration legends .—The Chitimacha trace their origin from 
the “country of the Natchez.” On the other hand, the Natchez 
trace their origin from the Chitimacha country to their south¬ 
west. It may be that the Natchez migrated up the Mississippi 
from their primitive home, while the Chitimacha migrated 
southward. The Natchez speaking of the Chitimacha called 
them “their brothers,” and a well known friendship existed be¬ 
tween the two tribes. 

Religious customs .—Both the Natchez and Chitimacha wor¬ 
shiped the Noon-day Sun with a highly developed ritualism 
that was largely the same among the two peoples. The cere- 


OCT 26 1314 


12 Bulletin 4—Hervas Laboratories. 

monies at the new moon, as well as the ceremonies in the temple, 
were also similar. Their beliefs, ceremonies and heirarchial 
system differed markedly from those of the Muskhogean 
peoples. We also find the counterpart of the Natchez mortuary 
customs in those of the Chitimacha. 

Social customs .—The Chitimacha in common with the Natchez 
had a highly developed system of classes which virtually 
amounted to a caste system not to be found among any of the 
other southern tribes. As far as recorded they agreed in hav¬ 
ing the same totemic gens. Descent was in the female line and 
the other features of social organization were not character¬ 
istic. We have no record, however, that either the Chitimacha 
or Natchez were divided into “peace” and “war” towns, as 
were the other southern tribes. 

The amusements like the myths (so far as known) were much 
alike among all the southern tribes. 

Conclusions .—I have shown that the Chitimacha and 
Natchez were phonetically and lexically the only languages of 
their region showing approximate similarity. This similarity 
is as great as could be expected for two languages supposedly 
of different stocks. The similarity is nearly as great as that 
existing between Creek and Choctaw, languages undoubtedly 
of familial relationship. While the accepted standard for eth¬ 
nological classification is that of language, there are as strong 
proofs from migration legends, etc. It seems that lately col¬ 
lected Natchez linguistic material reflects a greater Muskhogean 
influence than was formerly the rule: due to tribal influence 
(Mobilian trade jargon), adoption of part of the Natchez by 
the Creeks, etc. Therefore, I urge that the Chitimacha and 
Natchez be regarded as ethnically related, the latter having 
their language progressively more and more influenced by their 
Muskhogean surroundings. 



LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 029 037 431.5 


BULLETINS OF THE 
HERVAS LABORATORIES OF 
AMERICAN LINGUISTICS 

Bulletin No. 1 Bibliographies of Lesser North American Linguistic 
Families. 

Bulletin No. 2 Source-book of Muskhogean Archaeology and 
Ethnology. 

Bulletin No. 3 Proper Names from the Muskhogean Languages. 

Bulletin No. 4 Relationships of the Chitimachan Linguistic Family 

Bulletin No. 5 Grammatical and Lexical Notes on the Keres 
Language (Acoma-Laguna Dialect) of the Keresan 
Stock. 

Bulletin No. 6 Particals of the Choctaw Language. 

Bulletin No. 7 Analysis of a Text in the Apalachi Language 
(Muskhogean Stock) with Glossary. 



